Anonymous Attribution in Network News

Anonymous Communication in Organizations

“…Although several of the situations described in the model where one might attempt to be anonymous are relevant to an organizational context (e.g., when in a position of less power, when one has access to anonymous channels), this model is relatively general and does not speak to anonymous organizational communication directly. This seems to be true also of other existing research on anonymity in the field of communication, which tends to be more rhetorical (see Erickson & Fleuriet, 1991), journalistic (see Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986), legalistic (Bronco, in press), critical-cultural (see Rodriquez & Clair, 1999) or technological (see Joinson, 2001;O'Sullivan & Flanagin, 2003;Scott, 1999b;Scott, Quinn, Timmerman, & Garrett, 1999) than organizational in nature. 1 Thus, anonymity in organizations, or anonymous organizational communication, is clearly an under-theorized and under-researched area in our field.…”

The Anonymity Effect: The Influence of Anonymity on Perceptions of Sources and Information on Health Websites

“…Further, there is a great deal of consistency in the reasons given for communicating anonymously. Research into whistle-blowing (Near & Miceli, 1995) and performance feedback (Westerman & Rosse, 1997) in organizations, decision-making groups (Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997), interpersonal relationships (McKenna & Bargh, 2000), politics (Erickson & Fleuriet, 1991), journalism (Wulfemeyer, 1985;Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986), and health information on the Web (Cline & Haynes, 2001) all suggests that anonymity offers a measure of protection. Anonymity allows message senders to communicate an idea or information without the consequences*ranging from a face threat to personal retribution or legal action*of having the information attributed to them.…”

To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication

“…Receivers want to identify a source so that they may determine the source's credibility and, as a result, better assess the merit of a message. Research on journalism (Wulfemeyer, 1985;Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986), information seeking on the Web (Cline & Haynes, 2001;Sundar, 1998;Sundar & Nass, 2001), and even computer-mediated groups (Dennis, 1996;Dennis, Hilmer, & Taylor, 1998;El-Shinnawy & Vinze, 1997) demonstrates the importance of knowing a source's identity to evaluate his or her competence. Understanding a source's qualifications and trustworthiness are central to evaluating his or her message.…”

“…Third, the two contexts differ in the degree to which anonymity may be considered normative. In mass communication contexts, receivers are somewhat regularly exposed to anonymous communication (see Wulfemeyer, 1985;Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986). Anonymous editorials and sources are a long-standing tradition- (Wulfemeyer, 1985) Online chat forums (Joinson, 2001) Presidential rhetoric (Erickson & Fleuriet, 1991) Online discussion boards (Myers, 1987) Informational Web sites: for example, health information, legal information (Cline & Haynes, 2001) Telephone conversation: via caller identification blocking (Dutton, 1992) Cybersmearing and ''suck'' Web sites (Bronco, 2004) E-mail message: via anonymous remailer (Mostyn, 2000) Whistle-blowing (Miceli, et al, 1988) Evaluation/assessment: for example, 360-feedback, peer review (Antonioni, 1994) Graffiti (Rodriquez & Clair, 1999) Helpline/hotline ( Rituals/games: for example, masquerade ball, Halloween (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976) Note.…”